climate

Transport ministers plot climate action in Japan

TOKYO — Officials from 20 nations met Thursday in Japan to find ways to tackle global warming related to transport, which causes nearly one-quarter of carbon emissions but has partly evaded strict regulation. Transport ministers or envoys from nations including all members of the Group of Eight industrial powers opened two days of talks in […]

MIT and NBER (and Tol and Nordhaus) — right wing deniers love your work. Ask yourselves 'why?'

"Study Shows Global Warming Will Not Hurt U.S. Economy" -- That's the Heritage Foundation touting a new study by economists from MIT and the National Bureau of Economic Review.

This study, "Climate Shocks and Economic Growth: Evidence from the Last Half Century" [PDF] -- wildly mistitled and deeply flawed, as we will see -- is yet another value-subtracting contribution by the economics profession to climate policy.

What makes the paper especially noteworthy, however, is not merely the credentials of the authors, but that they thank such climate economist luminaries as William Nordhaus and Richard Tol for "helpful comments and suggestions." The only helpful comment and suggestion I can think of for this paper is, "Burn the damn thing and start over from scratch."

Heritage quotes the study:

Our main results show large, negative effects of higher temperatures on growth, but only in poor countries. In poorer countries, we estimate that a 1?C rise [sic -- the Heritage folks haven't mastered the ° symbol] in temperature in a given year reduced economic growth in that year by about 1.1 percentage points. In rich countries, changes in temperature had no discernable effect on growth. Changes in precipitation had no substantial effects on growth in either poor or rich countries. We find broadly consistent results across a wide range of alternative specifications.

Heritage then quotes a commentary on the study by right-wing blogger for U.S. News & World Report James Pethokoukis, "Sorry, Climate Change Wouldn't Hurt America's Economy." Pethokoukis also quotes from the study:

Despite these large, negative effects for poor countries, we find very little impact of long-run climate change on world GDP. This result follows from (a) the absence of estimated temperature effects in rich countries and (b) the fact that rich countries make up the bulk of world GDP. Moreover, if rich countries continue to grow at historical rates, their share of world GDP becomes more pronounced by 2099, so even a total collapse of output in poor countries has a relatively small impact on total world output.

(If these excerpts suggest to you that the study authors and the economist commenters are victims of some sort of collective mass hysteria, then you are a getting (a little) ahead of me ... but the fact that thoroughly-debunked denier Ross McKitrick is a commenter on this paper certainly suggests this entire effort is indefensible.)

Pethokoukis himself then offers a conclusion that, though amazing, is not utterly ridiculous given a narrow misreading of this absurdly narrow, easily-misread study:

A detailed look at building, industry, transportation, and land-use greenhouse-gas emissions

Greenhouse gases come in two basic flavors: carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, and emissions from land use -- agriculture, forests, peat bogs, and waste management. Fossil fuels are primarily used for energy in three sectors: buildings, industry, and transportation. Transportation is almost entirely oil-based -- according to the International Energy Association, about 0.1 percent of transportation energy currently comes from electricity.

Just to make things complicated, people use fossil fuels to make electricity to use in buildings and industry. Well, actually, we use fossil fuels to make electricity -- and -- we use fossil fuels to make heat to use in buildings and industry. In my previous post, I presented some pretty exciting tables summarizing this global state of affairs (and the accompanying Google workbook). Now, in part 2, a detailed look at building, industry, transportation, and land-use emissions:

Obama's EPA nominee promises to embrace science and act on climate issues

Lisa Jackson, Barack Obama's nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, got a warm reception from both sides of the aisle at her Wednesday hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, facing little of the tough questioning her critics had hoped for.

In her testimony, Jackson promised that "scientific integrity and the rule of law" would be her guiding principles at the agency. "I understand that the laws leave room for policymakers to make policy judgments," said Jackson. "But if I am confirmed, political appointees will not compromise the integrity of EPA's technical experts to advance particular regulatory outcomes."

She was given an especially warm welcome from Environment and Public Works Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who called the hearing "a turning point for the EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality." Boxer has faced off regularly with current EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, who has in the past refused to testify before her committee. "I'm reminded of Sleeping Beauty ... who needs to be awakened from a deep and nightmarish sleep," said Boxer. "I am confident we can wake up the EPA and the CEQ to their critical mission of protecting health and the environment."

The Republicans on the committee, including climate-change skeptic James Inhofe (Okla.), were also largely complimentary. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) called Jackson "imminently qualified."

A New Climate

Jackson said her early priorities would include reevaluating California's request for a waiver to set tougher tailpipe CO2 emission standards and following the Supreme Court's directives from the Massachusetts v. EPA climate-change decision.

Lou Dobbs works to make CNN viewers less informed

Will you look at the monumental, paleolithic, mind-boggling idiocy that's appearing on CNN in prime time?

Amazing. But there's more:

"Advocates of global warming." They're called scientists, you neanderthal. Christ. What year is it?

Lolcats go green!

(More animals)

Paulson brags on his delayer boss

This 'graph on the WSJ blog just about made me choke:

Of course, the obsession over what do to with developing countries -- especially China -- is one of President Bush's biggest environmental legacies, Secretary Paulson said, continuing the administration's week-long farewell tour. By relentlessly focusing on the role of developing-world emissions, President Bush "changed the debate," Sec. Paulson said.

Two points. First, the strategy of delaying U.S. action on climate change by recourse to fear-mongering about China and India is not a Bush invention. Conservatives (and, er, Democrats) have been pulling that crap since the '90s. That was the basis for the Senate rejecting Kyoto via the Byrd-Hagel Resolution.

Second, it is true that Bush has kept this delaying tactic at the center of the national debate. What is truly mystifying is why a Bush administration official who purports to be concerned about climate change would boast about it.

The U.S. needs a tougher 2020 GHG emissions target

A U.S. climate bill should set a target of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent to 30 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. That conclusion is based on the latest science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and NASA, among others, but it also involves matters of timing and U.S. cap-and-trade design. To achieve its goals, domestic climate legislation should limit the use of both international and domestic offsets.

The United States has the technology and resources to reduce its emissions levels substantially below 1990 levels by 2020, and having already lost much of its credibility in the international community by failing to act, there is no time to lose in adoption of binding targets to avoid the risks of dangerous impacts of global warming.

That is the executive summary of a new report I have written for the Center for American Progress (Full report here [PDF]). I have changed my thinking on the 2020 target a bit in the past year for three reasons:

1. Scientific observations and analysis in 2007 and 2008 make clear the pace and threat of climate change has accelerated (see Nos. 8, 7, and 3 here).
2. We must try to keep open the option of going much lower than 450.
3. Politicians insist on effectively watering down their 2020 targets with rip-offsets.

The full report is reprinted below:

Study predicts Australia's Aborigines to suffer most from climate change

SYDNEY — Australia’s outback Aborigines will be among the worst affected by climate change as soaring temperatures likely cause more disease and spur distress about the changing landscape, a new report shows. The expert report, published in the latest edition of the Medical Journal of Australia, argues that the country’s remote indigenous communities are the […]